Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
understand that ICSTIS's conclusions [from its review of the sector]
are imminent, and we urge the Gambling Commission to publish its
own findings as soon as possible. (Paragraph 25)
2. It is intensely
frustrating that uncertainty about whether programmes should or
should not be regulated as lotteries under current law is unlikely
to be resolved and that shows' status under current law will not
be determined. (Paragraph 26)
3. With some regret,
we agree with the Gambling Commission that there is little point
in pursuing in the courts cases concerning the status of Call
TV quiz shows under legislation which is soon to expire. (Paragraph
26)
4. We hope that the
Gambling Act 2005 will prove to be a more useful tool than current
legislation in clarifying the status of Call TV quiz shows. We
do not take this for granted, as the new Act was drafted before
Call TV quiz shows - very much a hybrid creation - became established
in broadcasting schedules. We believe that fresh uncertainties
in relation to Call TV quiz shows will arise under the new law
and will be dispelled only once case law has been established.
(Paragraph 27)
5. We believe that
Call TV quiz shows generally look and feel like gambling, whether
or not they will fall within the definition of gambling under
the Gambling Act 2005. The chance element, in whether or not a
caller gets beyond the first stage, is an integral part of the
format: it generates repeat calls and further revenue. Without
it, we doubt that the format would be as attractive to broadcasters.
We do not see why, just because a free entry route might exist,
those who pay a premium rate to enter a game in which the first
element is entirely one of chance are doing anything other than
gambling. Had the Call TV quiz show format been widespread when
the Gambling Bill was being drafted and debated, we would have
recommended that the definition of gambling be drawn so as to
cover viewers who pay to participate in such shows. (Paragraph
28)
6. It seems to us
that Call TV quiz shows should constitute gaming under the Gambling
Act 2005, and DCMS and the Gambling Commission should consider
this as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 29)
7. We commend the
operators who have voluntarily introduced practices intended to
help viewers who make repeated premium rate calls appreciate how
much they are spending. We recommend that ICSTIS commission or
carry out research into the effectiveness of alerts and limits
on the number of calls, particularly (in co-operation with consumer
bodies) among individuals who have got into debt. ICSTIS should
consider making it a requirement for quiz show operators to take
steps to ensure that callers are aware of how much they are spending.
(Paragraph 38)
8. Work should be
undertaken to assess the scale of addiction to participation in
Call TV quiz shows. Given the Gambling Commission's responsibility
under the Gambling Act 2005 for protecting vulnerable persons
from being harmed or exploited by gambling, we believe that this
would be an exercise appropriate to the Gambling Commission. We
also recommend that broadcasters should display the telephone
number for GamCare at regular intervals. (Paragraph 40)
9. We welcome Ofcom's
finding, in response to a complaint, that ITV had conducted a
competition unfairly and had been in breach of Rule 2.11 of the
Broadcasting Code. (Paragraph 43)
10. Some methodologies
used for puzzles on Call TV quiz shows are not obvious. We believe
that this is tolerable as long as viewers are made aware there
is a cryptic element: but this is currently not made clear. Guidance
from Ofcom on the issue is sound but does not go far enough. We
recommend that Ofcom should require broadcasters to inform viewers
that puzzle solutions may not be as simple as they seem. We believe
that checks by an independent third party on proposals for new
puzzle types and on each puzzle for conformity with agreed rules
are valuable in building confidence in the propriety of the games.
They are also in the industry's own interests. If there is continued
evidence of abuse and significant numbers of complaints about
games methodologies, Ofcom should consider making it obligatory
for all broadcasters of Call TV quiz shows to verify games with
a third party and lodge solutions with them to prevent underhand
changes being made while the show is on air. We recommend that
Ofcom should consider carefully whether operators should be required
to broadcast not just the solutions but also a brief explanation
as to how they are arrived at. (Paragraph 48)
11. We are surprised
that there have been so few complaints in Ofcom's Broadcast Bulletins
about games methodology or about the obscurity of answers. On
balance, unless there is a significant drop in confidence in the
integrity of Call TV quiz programmes, we accept that Ofcom's role
in ensuring fairness should continue to be primarily one of responding
to complaints rather than taking a proactive stance. We recommend,
however, that Ofcom should publish periodic reports on the findings
of its exercises in monitoring Call TV quiz programmes. Ofcom
should in particular watch for any sign that top prizes are consistently
going unclaimed because they are associated with puzzles which
are so obscure that no viewers solve them. (Paragraph 50)
12. We signal our
strong view that any practice of misleading viewers about call
volumes or of blocking calls would be more than unfair: it would
be fraudulent and should be punished under criminal law. It would
also be a disgrace to the Call TV quiz industry. (Paragraph 52)
13. We accept the
statement by ITV that the number of callers being charged for
calls made after they have exceeded call limits set by broadcasters
and who therefore cannot participate is very small. Nonetheless,
it is unacceptable in principle that such callers should continue
to be charged, particularly when they do not understand the futility
of such calls. We welcome the undertaking by ICSTIS that it will
investigate the practice of continuing to charge. We find it difficult
to believe that there is no suitable way of preventing such calls
from being charged, and we urge BT to assist in finding a solution.
In the meantime, customers should be refunded the cost of any
calls made which have been blocked from entering the competition.
(Paragraph 56)
14. We believe that
there is scope for raising the standards which broadcasters should
meet in presenting information on the cost of participation on-screen,
possibly by prescribing the balance to be maintained between that
information and the premium rate number. (Paragraph 62)
15. We accept that
there may be practical difficulties for operators in displaying
a figure purporting to show the odds of any viewer getting through
to the studio by making a call at that particular moment, but
we believe that they are not insurmountable. We are firmly of
the view that there should be more transparency about the factual
information on which a calculation of the odds would be based.
(Paragraph 65)
16. We recommend that
broadcasters should be required to display some recent historical
information about volume of incoming calls, with an indication
of the odds of being connected to the studio. The operators and
regulators should together devise a model for prescribing what
information should be provided and how often. We acknowledge that
considerable care will need to be taken to ensure that the information
given to viewers will indeed increase transparency. (Paragraph
68)
17. While it is right
and proper that operators should be able to ban participants caught
cheating from further participation, we believe that any participant
who has been banned should be given full information on the reasons
why the ban has been imposed. (Paragraph 69)
18. We welcome the
recognition by regulators that close co-operation is needed in
the Call TV quiz sector. Given the distinct areas of expertise
of each of the regulators, we believe there should continue to
be a regulatory role for each. However, we recommend that there
should be one regulator, in our view Ofcom, taking the lead and
orchestrating oversight. We believe that members of the public
have no clear idea which body they should complain to if they
have concerns, and we recommend that a single body should take
responsibility for registering all complaints and forwarding them,
as necessary, to the appropriate body. This would allow regulators
and broadcasters alike to gain a clearer picture of where concerns
lie. (Paragraph 76)
| 
